CRMPM/1806/2026 on 16 October 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1806 of 2026 Reserved on: 13.10.2026. Decided on: 16.10.2026 Karam Chand …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P.

…. Respondent

Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate with M/s J.R. Poswal and Anubhav Chopra, Advocates. For the Respondent/State : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. For the victim : M/s Malkiat Singh Jandiala, Ranju Saini and Piyush Agnihotri. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking regular bail in FIR No. 128 of 2025, dated 21.04.2025, registered at Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 85, 115 (2), 351(2), 80, 108, 61(2) read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, Neha (since deceased) was married to Sanjeev Kumar. Sanjeev Kumar and her parents-in-law treated her with cruelty. They harassed and beat her. She was forced to cook non-vegetarian food, even though she belonged to Sikh Religion, where such food is prohibited. Sanjeev Kumar consumed liquor and harassed her. Neha committed suicide by consuming poison. The police registered the FIR and arrested Sanjeev Kumar, his father Karam Chand (petitioner), mother Tej Kaur, sister Anju, Manjeet and Uncle Ram Singh. Manjeet Kaur and Ram Singh have been enlarged on bail. The petitioner has been in custody since 23.04.2025. The investigation is complete, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner has roots in society, and there is no chance of his absconding. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that Neha (since deceased) was married to Sanjeev Kumar on 06.11.2024. Sanjeev Kumar, his parents and sisters used to harass Neha for bringing insufficient dowry. They would beat and harass her. She belongs to the Sikh religion but was compelled to cook non- vegetarian food and wear a nose pin. Neha’s neighbour called the informant’s father on 19.04.2025 and told him that Neha’s condition had deteriorated. The informant, his brother and father arrived on the spot and found Neha lying unconscious on the bed. The informant’s brother and father tried to take Neha to the Hospital, but Sanjeev Kumar, Karam Chand (present petitioner) and Tej Kaur quarrelled with them and tried to stop them. Neha was taken to the Parmar Hospital, Ropar, where it was found that she had consumed poison. She was taken to PGI, Chandigarh. The Police registered the F.I.R. and investigated the matter. Neha died on 23.04.2025. The police arrested the petitioner and the co-accused. Sanjeev Kumar revealed that Neha had consumed poison on 18.04.2025, and she was taken to Rana Hospital, Panjehra. She was discharged on 19.04.2025. Hindol (an insecticide) was recovered at the instance of Sanjeev Kumar. The police recovered dowry articles and seized the record. The result of the analysis showed that Chlorpyrifos (Organophosphorus insecticide) was detected in the viscera. The Medical Board issued a final opinion that there was no negligence by the Doctor at Rana Hospital at Panjera. Manjeet Kaur, Anjana Kumari and Ram Singh were released on bail. No other case was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 140 of 2026 and was dismissed on 05.06.2026. The matter was listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses with effect from 04.08.2026 to 12.08.2026. The statements of three formal witnesses were recorded. The petitioner is 59 years old, and he has a family to support. The matter is listed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh on 01.12.2026. The prosecution has cited 37 witnesses, out of whom the statements of 6 witnesses have been recorded. Hence, the status report.

4. The informant also filed a reply/objection taking preliminary objections regarding lack of maintainability. It was submitted that there is no change in the circumstances and the present petition is not maintainable. The co-accused Sanjeev Kumar has submitted an application before the learned Trial Court for fair investigation. Rajo Devi, the mother of the informant and deceased Neha Devi, expired on 21.07.2026. The summons were also not received for the evidence of the witnesses at Sl. No. 1 to 4 for the date fixed. Harpreet Singh met the Public Prosecutor and disclosed the sudden death of Rajo Devi. The learned Public Prosecutor told him that the statements of PW1 and PW2 were required to be recorded on the same day. Naresh Kumar had also approached the Court for recording his statement. However, the statement was not recorded as the matter was already adjourned to another day. The learned Public Prosecutor had given up some of the witnesses, and there is substantial progress in the trial. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

5. I have heard Mr Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by M/s J.R. Poswal and Anubhav Chopra, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State and M/s Malkiat Singh Jandiala, Ranju Saini and Piyush Agnihotri, learned counsel for the informant.

6. Mr Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner/accused, submitted that this Court had earlier dismissed the bail petition filed by the petitioner by observing that the petitioner would be entitled to approach the Court for bail in case there is no substantial progress in the trial. The matter was listed before the learned Trial Court in August, but the statements of only three formal witnesses were recorded. The learned Trial Court had also noticed that the prosecution had not served the witnesses and was unable to conclude the trial. The informant was aware of the date of hearing and chose not to be present before the learned Trial

Court. The petitioner's right to speedy trial is being violated. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. He relied upon the following judgments in support of his submission:

1. Ayub Khan vs. State of Rajasthan 2024 INSC 994;

2. Rajesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. 2026:HHC:26936;

3. Rakesh Kumar @ Rocky Vs. State of H.P. 2025:HHC:37590; and

4. Harjot Singh vs. State of H.P. 2025:HHC:18168.

7. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that there is substantial progress in the trial. The matter has been listed by the learned Trial Court in the month of December, which shows the concern of the learned Trial Court to expeditiously conclude the trial. The earlier bail petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by this Court and a subsequent bail petition lies only when there is a change in the circumstances. The petitioner has not shown any change in the circumstances and is not entitled to bail. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

8. Mr Malkiat Singh Jandiala, learned counsel for the informant, submitted that a subsequent bail petition lies only when there is a change in the circumstances. The Court had held earlier that the petitioner would be entitled to approach the Court if there is no substantial progress in the trial. The matter was listed before the learned Trial Court. Some of the witnesses were examined, and some were given up, and it cannot be said that there is no substantial progress in the trial. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. He relied upon the following judgments in support of his submission:

1. Vinay Kumar vs. State of H.P. Cr.MP(M) No. 591 of 2026 decided on 12.08.2026;

2. Rohit Bishnoi vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. AIR (SC) 3547:2023(10) SCR 502 : 2023(2);

3. Gati Limited vs. T. Nagarajan Piramiajee and another 2019(5) RCR (Cri) 805; and

4. Satish Kumar Vs. State of U.T. Chandigarh and Ors. 2025(3) RCR (Cri) 324.

9. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

10. It is undisputed that the petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition, Cr.MP(M) No. 140 of 2026, which was dismissed by this Court on 05.06.2026. It was rightly submitted on behalf of the respondents that a subsequent bail petition lies only when there is a change in the circumstances. It was held in the State of Maharashtra v. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao (1989) Suppl 2 SCC 605 that once a bail application has been dismissed, a subsequent bail application can only be considered if there is a change of circumstances. It was observed: “Once that application was rejected, there was no question of granting a similar prayer. That is virtually overruling the earlier decision without there being a change in the fact situation. And when we speak of change, we mean a substantial one, which has a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely cosmetic changes, which are of little or no consequence. 'Between the two orders, there was a gap of only two days, and it is nobody's case that during these two days, drastic changes had taken place, necessitating the release of the respondent on bail. Judicial discipline, propriety and comity demanded that the impugned order should not have been passed, reversing all earlier orders, including the one rendered by Puranik, J., only a couple of days before, in the absence of any substantial change in the fact situation. In such cases, it is necessary to act with restraint and circumspection so that the process of the Court is not abused by a litigant and an impression does not gain ground that the litigant has either successfully avoided one judge or selected another to secure an order which had hitherto eluded him.

11. Similarly, it was held in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav (2004) 7 SCC 528 that where an earlier bail application has been rejected, the Court has to consider the rejection of the earlier bail application and then consider why the subsequent bail application should be allowed. It was observed: “11. In regard to cases where earlier bail applications have been rejected, there is a further onus on the court to consider the subsequent application for grant of bail by noticing the grounds on which earlier bail applications have been rejected and after such consideration, if the court is of the opinion that bail has to be granted then the said court will have to

give specific reasons why in spite of such earlier rejection the subsequent bail application should be granted.”

12. A similar view was taken in State of T.N. v. S.A. Raja, (2005) 8 SCC 380, wherein it was observed:

9. When a learned Single Judge of the same court had denied bail to the respondent for certain reasons, and that order was unsuccessfully challenged before the appellate forum, without there being any major change of circumstances, another fresh application should not have been dealt with within a short span of time unless there were valid grounds giving rise to a tenable case for bail. Of course, the principles of res judicata are not applicable to bail applications, but the repeated filing of bail applications without there being any change of circumstances would lead to bad precedents.”

13. This position was reiterated in Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. State of Maharashtra (2018) 11 SCC 458, wherein it was observed: “30. Before concluding, we must note that though an accused has a right to make successive applications for the grant of bail, the court entertaining such subsequent bail applications has a duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail applications were rejected. In such cases, the court also has a duty to record the fresh grounds, which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier applications.”

14. It was held in Ajay Rajaram Hinge v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1551, that a successive bail application can be filed if there is a material change in the circumstances, which means a change in the facts or the law. It was observed: “7. It needs to be noted that the right to file successive bail applications accrues to the applicant only on the existence of a material change in circumstances. The sine qua non for filing subsequent bail applications is a material change in circumstances. A material change in circumstances, as settled by law, is a change in the fact situation or law that requires the earlier view to be interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. However, a change in circumstances has no bearing on the salutary principle of judicial propriety that successive bail applications need to be decided by the same Judge on the merits, if available at the place of sitting. There needs to be clarity between the power of a judge to consider the application and a person's right based on a material change in circumstances. A material change in circumstances creates in a person accused of an offence the right to file a fresh bail application. But the power to decide such a subsequent application operates in a completely different sphere, unconnected with the facts of a case. Such power is based on the well-settled and judicially recognised principle that if successive bail applications on the same subject are permitted to be disposed of by different Judges, there would be conflicting orders, and the litigant would be pestering every Judge till he gets an order to his liking, resulting in the credibility of the Court and the confidence of the other side being put in issue, and there would be wastage of the Court's time and that judicial discipline requires that such matter must be placed before the same Judge, if he is available, for orders. The satisfaction of material change in circumstances needs to be adjudicated by the same Judge who had earlier decided the application. Therefore, the same Judge needs to adjudicate whether there is a change in circumstances as claimed by the applicant, which entitles him to file a subsequent bail application.”

15. Therefore, the present bail petition can only be considered on the basis of the change in the circumstances, and it is not permissible to review the order passed by the Court.

16. It was submitted that there is a change in the circumstances because there is no substantial progress in the trial, and this Court had held that the petitioner would be entitled to approach the Court in case there is no substantial progress in the trial. This submission will not help the petitioner. The copies of the order sheets show that three witnesses were given up by learned PP on 06.08.2026. One witness was given up on 07.08.2026. Statements of two witnesses were recorded on 10.08.2026, and the statement of one witness was recorded on 11.08.2026. Therefore, it is apparent that the learned Public Prosecutor has given up four witnesses and examined three witnesses. Therefore, the trial had progressed on the date fixed before the learned Trial Court.

17. It was submitted that the Court had observed in the earlier bail petition that the informant would be aware of the date of hearing and, in case they do not appear before the Court, the petitioner would be entitled to bail. The respondents have filed a copy of the certificate issued by Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Jhanjheri stating that Rajo Devi had expired on 21.07.2026. Death is a circumstance beyond the control of a person, and the petitioner should not take advantage of the misfortune in the informant's family. Therefore, the informant and his relatives had a reason not to appear before the Court on the date fixed.

18. The list of witnesses (Annexure R4) shows that eleven witnesses remain to be examined in the main charge sheet and the learned Trial Court has summoned all the witnesses with effect from 01.12.2026 till 10.12.2026. Therefore, it cannot be said that the learned Trial Court is not conducting the trial expeditiously. Hence, the judgments in Ayub Khan (supra), Rajesh Kumar (supra), Rakesh Kumar (supra) and Harjot Singh (supra) do not apply to the present case.

19. Therefore, the plea taken on behalf of the petitioner that there is no substantial progress in the trial and the petitioner is entitled to bail is not acceptable.

20. No other point was urged.

21. In view of the above, the present petition fails and is dismissed.

22. The observation made hereinbefore shall remain confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case.

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 16th October, 2026 (Chander)